Axis History Forum

This is an apolitical forum for discussions on the Axis nations and related topics hosted by Marcus Wendel's Axis History Factbook in cooperation with Christian Ankerstjerne’s Panzerworld and Christoph Awender's WW2 day by day.
Founded in 1999.

I know there are a lot of ridiculous stories about the war (an aircraft carrier being sunk and replaced by a fake one, british plans to use nuclear weapons against Buenos Aires, etc) but I recently came across this essay which doesn't seem so unbelivable to me. The author claims there were unnacounted troops from Nepal/Bhutan/Hong Kong involved, bringing the total number of casualties in the British side to 1029 (official number is 250) Here's a link to the article.

Hello M-F, I'm afraid I don't know Spanish, could you help out with some translation? Have tried an online auto-translate but its rubbish Just give as the bits in question re the 'unknown' casualties.

I have to say on the face of it this seems highly unlikely. The only Nepalese troops in the British Army, then as know, are the Gurkhas. As far as I know, only 1st Battalion, 7th Gurkha Rifles were down there. Not sure if they suffered any fatalaties. There were no units from Hong Kong involved in Op Corporate. Could this be to do with Merchant Navy crewmen and some of those on the Fleet Auxilleries? I know many of these were from Southern Asia, but again, the names and numbers are well documented.

Cheers.

"It was like Hungary being between Germany and the Soviet Union. What sort of choice was that? Which language would you like your firing squad to speak?" Tibor Fischer 'Under the Frog'.

You've (plural you) surely read the previous versions of this article. We intend this one to be the last, bringing new material to the table and confirming the ones we've used before. We've dedicated a full year to analyze the situation day by day and check for mistakes. We've tried to confirm the facts from both Argentine and British sources, and in the case where only Argentine sources existed, we've contacted the protagonists of these stories, being their testimonies an even more precise source of information than the books.

Several sources are listed at the bottom. We've taken into account all of them, even if some of them aren't considered serious, because of their lack of revision and analysis, caused by being published as soon as the conflict ended or by political intentions of the authors. We won't give names, those who have read our sources will know who we're talking about.

Those who want to know about the motives of why this work has changed so much from our initial figures posted in 2004, it's due to a change in the mechanics of our investigation. This author trusted the Argentine sources without imagining that some of them could manipulate and invent data blurring the line between reality and fiction. Thanks to this process, we've filtered out a great deal of both Argentine and British lies, some used to avoid PR damage to their homeland, and others for personal gain.

It's been 26 years since the conflict ended, there are still a lot of doubts and questions, but bit bit we've piecing together what really happened. It's unbeliavable how such a short and small conflict can leave behind actions that haven't been properly explained yet by both governments.

The biggest difference between this article and the original version (written in 2004) is that in those cases where the amount of casualties is unknown, we've put the probable number of casualties, using conventional estimation methods. This is because it's not our responsibility to give the exact number of casualties, it's the responsibility of the United Kingdom.

The data about ships and planes exposed here (with some exceptions that haven't been cleared up) are the most faithful to what really happened, being more precise than the data presented by the British and Argentine governments. The data about human losses is a lot more hazy and practically impossible to determine. Keep in mind that a great deal of British casualties were thrown to the sea, leaving few crosses in the isles. It's the same with the Chinese persons from Hong Kong who were aboard the RN ships. Officially there are only 6 Chinese casualties, which isn't proportional to the average number of UK casualties in the ships that were attacked, according to the official story.

Some stuff about copyright, those who want to reproduce this article please include our URL, etc

Once the war was over, the British gov. put in place an act of military secrecy until 14 June 2072 (90 years long) until then those who divulge relevant data or information will be prosecuted. No one has dared to do so, but surely an important part of that Act is the number of british casualties during the war and the amount of material (ships and planes) the official numbers are 255 dead 777 injured. The proportion between wounded and killed calls our attention. Conventionally the ratio isn't more than 2 wounded:1 dead. This is another manipulation, counting as casualties only the number of those who were killed in combat and not those who were wounded and died later.

Here we analyze day by day the losses the UK suffered from April 22 to 14 June 1982, when the isles were usurped again. (The blue number is our estimated amount of casualties)

22/04 2 A couple of Wessex helis from the RFA Tidespring crashed at Fortuna Glacier (TL note. I don't know the english name of this location) south of the Georgias due to bad weather. At least 2 people died.

23/04 1 A Sea King heli crashed S. of Ascension island.

1/05 11 A harrier (Lt. Sanchez, roland missiles) and a Sea Harrier (Crpl Almada, 20mm cannon) destroyed near Port Stanley according to Argentine testimonies. Losses not recognized by the UK. At least 9 sailors killed in the attacks to the following ships: HMS Arrow, Exeter, Glamorgan, Hermes air carrier (accidentaly), Alacrity.

04/05 32 A sea Harrier shot down at Condor air base. Sqn 800 shot by AAA at Goose Green.

05/05 1 One marine at Bahia Elefante.

06/05 2 Two Sea Harriers from the Invincible crash due to bad weather, SW of Soledad isle. According to Argentine testimonies these had been shot down over Condor air base 2 days earlier in a failed air raid. UK sources claim it was an accident.

17/05 1 One Sea King lost at sea due to technical failure, one Sea Harrier lost as well due to mechanical failure (Fuel issues during the ski jump. Sqn 809, pilot is lightly injured

18/05 22 One Sea King crashes against Albatross near Punta Arenas, British sources claim it was an accident, Argentine sources claim they shot it down.

21/05 34 Two Gazelles shot down in San Carlos. HMS Ardent sunk with 22 people inside. HMS Argonaut, Anrtrim, Brilliant are disabled. HMS Broadsword damaged. A Lynx is destroyed. One Harrier is shot down (Blowpipe missile)

22/05 One Harrier is shot down attacking the Rio Iguazu of the Naval Prefecture. *according to witnesses the Harrier left the scene with a smoke coming out of it, so it might have just been damaged

24/05 20 A number of ships are damaged. HMS Sir Lancelot, Sir Galahad, Sir Bedivere, Fearless. The Fearless was packed full (contingent of 300 soldiers to be unloaded at S. Carlos Bay + a crew of 500) to be disembarked at S. Carlos bay so we estimated high casualties.

25/05 135 HMS Coventry sunk. It went under in less than 15 minutes, 90 casualties estimated. Atlantic Conveyor sunk, a great number of Chinese soldiers are killed but not recognized. HMS Broadsword, Sir Lancelot disabled. Alacrity and Yarmouth are damaged. 1 Lynx is lot with the Coventry and other 2 damaged. Lost with the Atlantic Conveyor: 6 Wessex, 3 Chinooks, 1 Lynx

28/05 136 Two Sea Lynx helis shot down at Darwin in plain sight, amount of casualties/survivors unknown. A Scout is shot down by a Pucara N. of Goose Green. 1 SAS killed in Gran Malvinas, officially recognized, but there were probably more, which was what probably caused the failure of their mission. Between 27/05 and 29/05 according to eye witness accounts of Argentine soldiers approx. 130 men of 2 Para and Royal Auxiliary are killed in the battles for Darwin and Goose green. UK sources put this number at 23 without counting the amount of wounded who passed away later.

30/05 Harrier shot down, pilot rescued. HMS Invincible attacked, hit by 1 Exocet and two 250kg bombs. Unknown if this attack really happened, hard to tell. UK sources deny it, while our Air Force trusts the testimonies of it's pilots. One of the great misteries of the war. For more info click here (Link to a different article)

1/06 Sea Harrier shot down by MAA Roland missile. Pilot rescued

06/06 4 One Gazelle is shot down by friendly fire from HMS Cardiff.

08/06 150 Attack on Fitz Roy. HMS Sir Galahad disabled, later sunk by it's own RN. HMS Sir Tristam is also disabled. One LCU Foxtrot landing craft is destroyed, no soldiers were aboard, only logistical materials. Dozens of Chinese soldiers killed at the beach due to heavy bombing. HMS Avenger disabled. HMS Plymouth attacked at Bay Pleasant, hit by 5 bombs. One harrier lost due to technical failure, later recovered and repaired. Heavy bombing of enemy lines by the Canberra planes, causing many unreported casualties over the following days.

09/06 18 KIAs over Mt. Dos hermanas

10/06 4 Four Marines die in an accident

11/06 44 KIAs between 11/06: 3 at Mt. Harriet, 23 from the 3 Para at Mt. Longdon, 4 of the Commandos 45, 1 of the Commandos 42, 13 of B company

12/06 29 At Mt dos hermanas four soldiers die. HMS Glamorgan disabled by an exocet fired from Prt Stanley. Chinese killed, not reported. Wessex heli from the Glamorgan is destroyed, a Sea Harrier is shot down by an argentine battery (I don't know how to translate the name) while attempting to relocate their materials W. of Mt. Longdon. Unknown number of casualties.

13/06 360 Between 13/06 and 14/06 during the battles for Mt. Longdon, Mt Williams and Wireless Ridge, Argentine witnesses claim they saw UK soldiers pick up 350-380 of their own dead during the day, officially this number is a lot lower. Translator's note: This is mentioned in Carlos Robacio's book (who I believe was a rear admiral at the time) "From the Front: BIM Nº5" Robacio claims the number of British KIAs exceded that of Argentina.

14/06 5 According to the book by Carlos Robacio one Sea King is shot down at Zapper Hill and other 2 damaged, one of them disabled. One of them exploded killing everyone inside after repelling an attack with a PAF. Unknown number of casualties, no Sea King losses recognized by the UK. 5 men killed at Top Malo House combat

The British task force was composed of 113 ships.27 were warships. Of these 11 were left ineffective (sunk or disabled), 7 damaged, that makes 40% disabled and 70% hit by the air force. There's a quote from Admiral Woodward where he shows concern about the number of damaged ships.

Planes lost

from the aeronaval squadrons

Sea Harriers lost or disabled: 8

from the airforce

Sea harriers lost or disabled: 6

helis

Helicopters lost or disabled: 31

total: 45

We didn't take into consideration the planes lost due to technical failures, accidents outside the exclusion zone etc.

Conclusion:1029 KIAs31 ships damaged or lost45 planes damaged or lost

Great Britain never declared the real number of troop casualties & great equipment losses. It has been demonstrated that they suffered a great deal of damage, greater than the one the Argentine forces suffered (And don't forget to take into account the differences in equipment and technology between both sides)Today the isles are in British possesion thanks to the assistance of the US & other NATO members. Don't forget that many European countries imposed economic sanctions on Argentina.By the end of June both sides were at the limit of their capacities. GB had no power on the air & at sea and her troops would not hold out much longer. Argentina was in even worse conditions, because of very poor leadership & lack of supplies. If the war had lasted a few more weeks, GB would have insisted on using nuclear weapons. Cities like Cordoba, Buenos Aires and Bahia Blance were on the sights of the nuclear subs GB positioned 12 miles from the coast until the end of the conflict. This is why the Pope visited London first. It wasn't a simple visit, and the conflict wasn't a small war against a dictatorship, that lasted only a few days, and had no revelevance or no mysteries.

The isles would never be abandoned by the British, it's a key strategic point in the S. Atlantic, which controls access to the Pacific. The isles act as a massive air carrier with great geopolitical and geostrategical value. The isles also work as a springboard into the Antartica, which also has great strategic value.

The British recognize only casualties with English, Welsh and Scottish names, but they forget about the Chinese they brought from Hong Kong and the Gurkhas. The auxiliary ships which were attacked carried a great number of Chinese people. However the number of Chinese casualties is very small. A lot of things don't add up, and this is why GB owns the world an explanation. Another lie is about the number of people who were wounded in combat and then passed away due to complications. In most cases they only recognize those who died without being reported as wounded first.

Of 255 confirmed casualties, 177 are under the sea. If we go by the official numbers, the number of deaths caused by attacks on the navy doesn't go over 100. Is it possible that corpses of soldiers who were killed inland were thrown to the sea? It's another question that raises doubts about the veracity of the British numbers.

The numbers of ships and planes hit are the most belivable, with the exception of the air carriers. The number of casualties might be even higher. It's data brought from sources of information we can trust. Speculation had no place in this article. No other publication has developed this issue with the same care and dedication. This data is as truthful as possible

Personally I believe a lot of this has been exaggerated but the author makes some interesting points. I wonder if 100-200 KIAs were hidden.

... The isles would never be abandoned by the British, it's a key strategic point in the S. Atlantic, which controls access to the Pacific. The isles act as a massive air carrier with great geopolitical and geostrategical value. The isles also work as a springboard into the Antartica, which also has great strategic value.[...]

[...] A lot of things don't add up, and this is why GB owns the world an explanation. Another lie is about the number of people who were wounded in combat and then passed away due to complications. In most cases they only recognize those who died without being reported as wounded first.

Personally I believe a lot of this has been exaggerated but the author makes some interesting points. I wonder if 100-200 KIAs were hidden.

Sounds like the author of the article has a bad case of "sour grapes," and wishes that the UK casualty rate was higher so to ease his wounded pride.

I think Penn 44 has got this right. Poorly researched conspiracy rubbish riddled with blatant factual errors and illogical conclusions. I'd be more than willing to believe that a small number of SAS/SBS casualties in special ops both on the Falklands and elsewhere might have been 'covered up' but what would that be? Six? Seven? At best a dozen KIA.

And the nonesense about bodies being 'thrown into the sea'. Surprise, surprise, the RN like many other Navies around the world often buries those KIA at sea. Their names still go onto monuments put up on land. This also includes Merchant Seamen killed whilst serving in support of UK forces.

The stuff about ratios of killed to wounded is just unfounded gibberish, ratios of WIA to KIA rose throughout the C20th with improvements in medicine and surgery and with greater mobility for casevac. Also, I'm no fan of the Thatcher Government (I was in my early teens at the time) but the war was subject to media scrutiny both at the time and after, wouldn't all these missing people have come to notice?

Cheers.

"It was like Hungary being between Germany and the Soviet Union. What sort of choice was that? Which language would you like your firing squad to speak?" Tibor Fischer 'Under the Frog'.

Inselaffe wrote:I The stuff about ratios of killed to wounded is just unfounded gibberish, ratios of WIA to KIA rose throughout the C20th with improvements in medicine and surgery and with greater mobility for casevac. Cheers.

No shit, , Sure the true ratios have change slightly over the past 100 years and vary from war to war , but generally KIA/WIA remains 1:3 or 1/4. Of late there have been some significantly skewed ratios caused by increasing use of body armor in low intensity combat situations, and by increased training in "combat lifesaving" to all front line soldiers. These effects are generally only noticeable in the richest of armies involved in low-intensity fighting.

None of this chamges the fact that many amatures/media hacks when writing about "war" or wars, readily confuse casualties with dead, because they simply don't know when to divide, or don't want to. This topic has been discussed/brought-up ad naseum in the context of the 1 miillion dead for the US invasion of Japan. This same error has obviously been done again in this Falklands Island article.

Obvious to you, obvious to me, not that obvious it appears to the original poster or the writer of the article in question, hence my stating of this.

ChristopherPerrien wrote:but generally KIA/WIA remains 1:3 or 1/4. Of late there have been some significantly skewed ratios caused by increasing use of body armor in low intensity combat situations, and by increased training in "combat lifesaving" to all front line soldiers. These effects are generally only noticeable in the richest of armies involved in low-intensity fighting.

Agreed. I was talking about the figures given in the article not your point about KIA to WIA.

"It was like Hungary being between Germany and the Soviet Union. What sort of choice was that? Which language would you like your firing squad to speak?" Tibor Fischer 'Under the Frog'.

I realize I am necroing a thread, but what is up with British secrecy laws? It seems compared to many other democratic countries they are VERY secretive with some things. I mean 90 years to get the "real" facts....wtf?

Thranx20 wrote:I realize I am necroing a thread, but what is up with British secrecy laws? It seems compared to many other democratic countries they are VERY secretive with some things. I mean 90 years to get the "real" facts....wtf?

It's not that the British are especially secretive. (If you want SECRETIVE, look at Russia.)

It's just the organisational culture in Whitehall. Civil servants are conditioned to serve the government, not the people. Keeping information under wraps saves government ministers from potential embarrasment from the press.

Successive goverments don't change this because once they're in government, they quickly find that they like having that protection, even though they hated it when they were in Opposition...

Thranx20 wrote:I realize I am necroing a thread, but what is up with British secrecy laws? It seems compared to many other democratic countries they are VERY secretive with some things. I mean 90 years to get the "real" facts....wtf?

Its horses for courses I'm afraid but the British Government is becoming less rigid about document secrecy. However like the US with its much vaunted FOI there are still files unseen for over 50years concerning Vietnam-from an ex-Vet who's been asking for certain files-and no doubt there are others (maybe older) that for one reason or another haven't been released etc

Regards

Andy H

PS: Just to keep on topic, in this era of 24/7 news and everyone and there mobile having almost instant access to various forms of media outlet, it becomes very hard to supress casualties as but forward by this rather funny article.

Hello everyone, I'm sorry for reviving such an old topic, but I wanted to post something.

After reading the responses to this thread and other materials written by the authors of this study, I was pretty much convinced that the entire thing was just propaganda written for political purposes, and forgot about it (1000 hidden casualties are just too much) Some time later, for unrelated reasons, I came across two books about the war- one by Commodore Moro, veteran of the conflict (Listed in the source section of the article) and another one by Professor Moreno from the War School of the Argentine Army. I couldn't help but notice there are conflicting accounts in these books regarding the official numbers.

For example, regarding May first, Moro describes the air raid on Port Stanley airfield. He lists several testimonies of anti-air battery operators, with names and ranks, who claim that they shot down a total of 3 planes, arguing that they were very alert that morning since a few hours earlier the runway had been attacked by a Vulcan (First black buck raid) which had caught them by surprise. Moro also adds that the radar operators saw seven "echoes" approaching the runway but only four leaving, which, to him, confirmed the kills. He also adds that this was one of the very few times that the runway was raided during daytime.

In Moreno's book, there are very conflicting accounts regarding the battle at Top Malo House from the soldiers of company 602. For example, they claim they saw a officer of the Winter and Arctic Cadre do a headcount after the battle and count "two dead", a British soldier crying over a corpse, and a total of 4 body bags being carried away.

It seems impossible for me to hide casualties in this modern age, with telephones, cameras, and so on. Those pilots who were supposedly killed on May first (Unless they ejected and were rescued) they were most likely officers, and had a good salary, probably big families and social circles. Someone would have missed them. But, at the same time, these testimonies seem somewhat solid. What really happened? What do you guys think? I think there's something strange going on. Unless those testimonies are just a bunch of lies (which is entirely possible)

No, I doubt that. I'd put money on it being a case of poeple not recognising what they were seeing, and/or not remembering what they saw accurately.

An annecdotal example: Some years ago, and not long after the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, the airforce of my country decided to do a 'flyover' of a stadium where the final of a major national competition was being held. Normally, that'd be a good idea, but people were still a bit twitchy about large planes flying low and close to large structures. Naturally, the media decided they could make some hay on this story, portrayed the airforce as foolish and irresponsible, and interviewed people who were at the stadium. At least one of those described the aircraft as a 'fighter'.

So, tell me, was it a fighter?

It's hard to know, right - you only have that person's testimony, and my recollection of it. Would it help if I told you that the airforce's strike wing had been retired the year before. What if I told you the aircraft in question was large, had a high mounted wing, and four turbo-prop engines - two mounted on each wing.

What do you think now - was it a fighter, or did the witness just not know or understand the details of what they were talking about?

An aircraft flying at 2,000 feet shows up on a 1982 radar set. An aircraft flying at 20 feet doesn't show up on a 1982 radar set.

So if a radar operator orders a SAM launch and then sees a blip disappear from his screen, does that mean the aircraft has been shot down? No, not necessarily - the aircraft could have dropped to a lower altitude to avoid the missile and to evade detection.

The radar operator, seeing a blip disappear, should report to his superior that he's lost contact with his target - not that it's been shot down. But an inexperienced operator (probably reporting to an equally inexperienced superior) could easily make such a mistake.